Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

The phalanx by all references
I've read in my life was by definition INFLEXIBLE.

>I disagree...in part. I've written on this before, both in Tom McMillan's old
newsletter and Spearpoint. Article was entitled "The Manipular Phalanx". I
agree that post-Pyrrhic pike phalanxes were mongo-large and their basic unit
"building blocks" were also mongo-large. As such, their ability to maneuver as
we're discussing is quite suspect. In fact, I think it was Phillip V who tried
to institute something to protect the pike phalanx flanks after his experience
with the Romans but he missed the entire point: his formations were too big and
thus, too unwieldly.

>But, the Macedonian phalanx of Alexander's day (and most likely the immediate
Successor period) comes across as quite FLEXIBLE (as I pointed out in the
original article). The battle reports, to the extent in which they provide the
detail we want, strongly suggests Alex's phalanxes were perfectly capable of
doing both about faces and right turns, mainly because they were so flexible in
just about every other area. Again, nothing explicitly stated but then the
battles don't really put the taxeis in a position to about face or right turn
(Guagamela being a possible exception when the camp was looted but the battle
account is somewhat contradictory and vague).

>An Alexandrian taxeis was 1536 men, with the building block being, literally a
16x16 man formation, 256 men. Nothing that subsequent drill manuals or even
better, the reference that Christian mentions suggests most Hellenistic pike
dudes couldn't perform these basic drill patterns. And we assume that the
"drill manuals" from Alex's day were preserved and used down thru the end of the
Hellenistic era. In fact, as someone who's drilled before, wheeling a large
formation and keeping it intact is a helluva lot harder than turning in place,
weapon length becomes a non issue when it's vertical. But I digress.

>And I don't agree that Alexandrian (or immediate Successor) pikemen were any
less professional than the 18th century examples provided. On the contrary, try
to tell me that a Macedonian Hypaspist of 325 BC was any less "professional"
than any soldier in history. Well, okay, you can tell me that, I just won't
agree with you:):)

>And Christian, if your mentor could somehow put us onto these untranslated
drill manuals. I'm sure we can come up with people who can translate em at some
point.

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/23/2005 17:25:20 Central Standard Time,
cgc.sjw@... writes:

The only way it can be an element wide at the end of the facing
is by either wheeling sub-divisions and reforming to a new front, or by
facing and moving incremental sub-divisions up by inclining to form a
new front.>>

Indeed it is so...

J






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> The phalanx by all references
> I've read in my life was by definition INFLEXIBLE.
>
> >I disagree...in part. I've written on this before, both in Tom
McMillan's old newsletter and Spearpoint. Article was entitled "The
Manipular Phalanx". I agree that post-Pyrrhic pike phalanxes were
mongo-large and their basic unit "building blocks" were also mongo-
large. As such, their ability to maneuver as we're discussing is
quite suspect. In fact, I think it was Phillip V who tried to
institute something to protect the pike phalanx flanks after his
experience with the Romans but he missed the entire point: his
formations were too big and thus, too unwieldly.
>
> >But, the Macedonian phalanx of Alexander's day (and most likely
the immediate Successor period) comes across as quite FLEXIBLE (as I
pointed out in the original article). The battle reports, to the
extent in which they provide the detail we want, strongly suggests
Alex's phalanxes were perfectly capable of doing both about faces and
right turns, mainly because they were so flexible in just about every
other area. Again, nothing explicitly stated but then the battles
don't really put the taxeis in a position to about face or right turn
(Guagamela being a possible exception when the camp was looted but
the battle account is somewhat contradictory and vague).

[CTB]: Well at least we now know that the game capabilities are
based on assumptions. That helps. All that I am aware of for
Macedonian phalanx maneuvers is that they were capable of complex
doubling maneuvers but nothing is listed about facing maneuvers nor
to the rear march capabilities. I will demonstrate in my next
paragraph why your assumptions are misplaced.
>
> >An Alexandrian taxeis was 1536 men, with the building block being,
literally a 16x16 man formation, 256 men. Nothing that subsequent
drill manuals or even better, the reference that Christian mentions
suggests most Hellenistic pike dudes couldn't perform these basic
drill patterns. And we assume that the "drill manuals" from Alex's
day were preserved and used down thru the end of the Hellenistic
era. In fact, as someone who's drilled before, wheeling a large
formation and keeping it intact is a helluva lot harder than turning
in place, weapon length becomes a non issue when it's vertical. But
I digress.

[CTB]:You are right about wheeling and yet history shows us virtually
nothing but wheeling formations. Why? Why, if it is easier, do the
less professional armies (to your point of view) of Marlborough and
Fredrick wheel rather than just make facing movements? I propose it
is because of the location of key personnel in every organized
military formation.

[CTB]: The syntagma was commanded by the syntagmatarch. He stood at
the right front corner of the formation. Every lieutenant of his
knew where he stood. You make facing movements and now where does he
stand?

[CTB]: Each file was commanded by a lochagos at the front of the
file. Each phalangite in the file knew who his lochagos was and
responded to him as today's soldiers respond to their platoon
leader. You make a facing movement and go into battle and suddenly
private snuffy is leading a file of men, none of whom are part of his
file. All of the lochagos are now in their own file also made up of
their superiors the Dilochites. The Ouragos, who brought up the rear-
sergeants perhaps?- are now in a file and you have noone of rank
bringing up the rear. The whole organization breaks down unless you
have a massive reshuffle of personnel. And that is not easier when
everyone is carrying a pike than making a wheeling move.

Further, the taxeis was more of a linear formation than block. It
was 96 men across by 16 deep. Our 8 element blocks represent this
pretty well, numbers wise and maybe even footprint wise, but if such
a formation made a facing movement you had 5 taxeis who had to beat
feet to get into line again. There are NO examples of the taxeis
going into battle 16 across by 96 deep much less having the average
phangite leading individual files of 96. If the body made a left
face it would have NO syntagmatarch's in the front rank. Do they
jump out of formation and take their places? IF so then how does the
rest of the body adjust. Lots of shuffling and much confusion. I am
unaware of any examples of pike block making facing movements in
drill manuals. It is certainly not in any of the pictures of
formations available to the phalanx in Asclepiodotus (1st century BC).
>
> >And I don't agree that Alexandrian (or immediate Successor)
pikemen were any less professional than the 18th century examples
provided. On the contrary, try to tell me that a Macedonian
Hypaspist of 325 BC was any less "professional" than any soldier in
history. Well, okay, you can tell me that, I just won't agree with
you:):)

[CTB]:Sure, tell me with a straigh face that the hypastists would
stand in line with no shields to offer pshchological protection while
whole ranks were wiped away by artillery fire and just step forward
to fill ranks. :)

Chris

P.S. Jon, what happened to the notion you used to espouse that if
there was no evidence of troop types having a capability then it
would not be granted to them in Warrior?

[scott holder]

I will demonstrate in my next paragraph why your assumptions are
misplaced.

>You have your assumptions, I have mine. I think I'll leave it at
that and bow out of this discussion.

scott

[Chris Bump]

> Okay. And I do not expect anything to change. But I offered you no
assumptions in making my points. I asked questions that I cannot believe were
seriously considered when assigning capabilities to this particular troop type.
Chris

> From: "irobot00" <Scott.Holder@...>
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 06:48:56 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

The reason why we don't revisit an issue after deciding is because if someone
still wants to bring it up then it is primarily because they want to get into a
long point-counterpoint...lol Well, Scott, you're on your own... can't say i
didn't warn ya...lol

<<P.S. Jon, what happened to the notion you used to espouse that if
there was no evidence of troop types having a capability then it
would not be granted to them in Warrior?>>

Its alive and well. You are the one who thinks pike can't do a facing movement,
not me. We settled this issue a long time ago.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott holder]

I asked questions that I cannot believe were seriously considered
when assigning capabilities to this particular troop type.

>I can't help what you believe. As Jon stated, you don't believe
phalanxes can do facing movements, we do.

>And lemme restate here that issues such as this were seriously
considered. I find it mildly insulting that you would suggest
otherwise.

scott

[joncleaves]

On a slightly separate note -

If an 8E pike unit is 2E across and 4E deep it is 8 figs across and 4 deep.

If it turns 90 degrees, it is also 8 figs along the original long dimension and
4 along the original short dimension.

I thought I saw something in there that refuted this and wanted to clarify, in
case someone was turning incorrectly.

J


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

No, your position has not been about what one person thought capability wise was
versus another thought. Your position has been that lack of evidence as to
one's capability precluded said troop type receiving that capability. Lack of
evidence of a given troop type being present in an army precluded that troop
type being in the army. For me to change your position on this rule you would
be asking me to prove a negative. This of course is not possible. "stop
beating your dog yet?"

You through avoidance and Scott via written word have conceded that granting
Macedonian pikes, and for that matter all pikes facing capability is based on
assumptions and that you have no data supporting this position. Basically,
these guys seemed pretty flexible so although there is no evidence that they
could perform certain feats, FHE are going to allow them to. There is evidence
that Roman legionaires fought in loose order formations and yet because you do
not feel that accurately represents how you think they should perform you ignore
this data and force them to fight in closed order. I have not done the research
for all of the armies that you have done. I have an interest in a few periods
and am generally willing to accept the work done by FHE. But examples like this
make ME wonder how may other SWAG's have taken place.

It is my opinion that that this notion is not at all alive and well.
Do what you like. I am not asking that the rules be changed- not even I am that
ignorant of facts determined by history. And I will continue to buy your
products as they are the best that are available. But you guys really missed an
opportunity to make this game more of a simulation than it is and I can assure
you of frustration among at least one geographic faction of your customers as to
how you manage this process.
Chris
>
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 07:13:19 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

I do not intend to insult you. I prostrate myself before you with regards to
your knowledge of history, but you guys do not have a corner on the market with
regards to the understanding nor interpretation of military history. When a
question is asked and you take the position of well you believe this and we
believe that- enough said, then eyebrows are raised. You have no eveidence and
choose not to answer reasoned questions as to how things that would logically
occur would be addressed with your theory. You've admitted that you are working
on assumptions and thus have only a theory. You, Scott, have often taken the
position that lack of evidence precludes presence in the game. Yet when
querried about your evidence you shell up. Jon uses his lol, I warned you.
Don't try to discuss history with the dirty masses, they'll only draw you in.
I have no skin in this game. I am not the one making the claim that these
issues have all been well considered and decided upon based on historical facts.
You disagreed with my original post, but the only evidence you offered was a
comment about an article you had written, which by the way does not speak to the
facing maneuvers of the taxeis. I assume when you wrote it you cited some
primary sources. Is it so much to ask that when someone questions your position
you simply point them in the direction of those sources? That is how this whole
trend started. Doug asked for an example. The 30k flyover shows a customer
asking for a historical example, FHE stating that they are satisfied with the
rule as written and then you being insulted when additional questions are asked.
I guess that the most significant difference between us is that in the event
that you can actually find a source that demonstrates this capability by pike
formations, I will simply admit that I am wrong.
Chris
>
> From: "irobot00" <Scott.Holder@...>
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 07:28:23 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

No Jon,
A body that is 8 across by 4 deep is 2 elements by 4 and a 90 degree turn will
create a 1 element across by 6 deep formation. See 6.121 and your illustration
on page 34 of the Warrior rules.
Chris
>
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 07:53:03 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

> somehow I cut this off before I finished, but the end of the sentence stated
that I will admit that I am wrong.

Chris
> From: <cncbump@...>
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 08:16:24 GMT
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mike Turner]

Come on,
I'm not a FH'men, but even reading your past posts on this subject
your ARE insulting them and sarcastically poking them in the eye in
several sentences in each post.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <cncbump@v...> wrote:
> I do not intend to insult you. I prostrate myself before you with
regards to your knowledge of history, but you guys do not have a
corner on the market with regards to the understanding nor
interpretation of military history. When a question is asked and you
take the position of well you believe this and we believe that-
enough said, then eyebrows are raised. You have no eveidence and
choose not to answer reasoned questions as to how things that would
logically occur would be addressed with your theory. You've admitted
that you are working on assumptions and thus have only a theory.
You, Scott, have often taken the position that lack of evidence
precludes presence in the game. Yet when querried about your
evidence you shell up. Jon uses his lol, I warned you. Don't try to
discuss history with the dirty masses, they'll only draw you in.
> I have no skin in this game. I am not the one making the claim
that these issues have all been well considered and decided upon
based on historical facts. You disagreed with my original post, but
the only evidence you offered was a comment about an article you had
written, which by the way does not speak to the facing maneuvers of
the taxeis. I assume when you wrote it you cited some primary
sources. Is it so much to ask that when someone questions your
position you simply point them in the direction of those sources?
That is how this whole trend started. Doug asked for an example.
The 30k flyover shows a customer asking for a historical example, FHE
stating that they are satisfied with the rule as written and then you
being insulted when additional questions are asked. I guess that the
most significant difference between us is that in the event that you
can actually find a source that demonstrates this capability by pike
formations, I will simply admit that I am wrong.
> Chris
> >
> > From: "irobot00" <Scott.Holder@f...>
> > Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 07:28:23 GMT
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

<<No, your position has not been about what one person thought capability wise
was
versus another thought. Your position has been that lack of evidence as to
one's capability precluded said troop type receiving that capability. Lack of
evidence of a given troop type being present in an army precluded that troop
type being in the army. >>

No, my position is that I am quite satisfied that the historical record shows
enough evidence of pike facing movements that we have it correct. Do I have all
those books still at my house? No. I turned them back over to wherever I got
them in 2001. Can I quote Xenophon from my office? No. But it doesn't matter.
I don't debate decided issues. What's the point? But I would appreciate you
stopping trying to speak for us. I will continue to ask you to stop until you
do, or I have to up the ante. I will not let this forum degenerate at the hands
of a vocal few who wish to be disruptive - and continuing to state our position
for us and getting it wrong is disruptive.

<<For me to change your position on this rule you would
be asking me to prove a negative.>>

I am not asking you to prove or disprove anything. I am asking you to stop
stating FHE's position for us. I am not going to do it too many more times...

<< You through avoidance and Scott via written word have conceded that granting
Macedonian pikes, and for that matter all pikes facing capability is based on
assumptions and that you have no data supporting this position.>>

Again, incorrect. I am sorry you do not feel as included as you would like to
have been in the original playtest. But we beat this horse in 99-01 and we have
decided and that is that. I really don't mind if you debate that here - despite
not understanding why someone would want to. But you need to stop making
insulting claims about our company. We work too hard for too little reward to
put up with it - and we won't.

<< There is evidence
that Roman legionaires fought in loose order formations and yet because you do
not feel that accurately represents how you think they should perform you ignore
this data and force them to fight in closed order.>>

Actually, again as we have been through this before, we took a very hard look as
to whether or not the historical record on Marian legionaires showed that they
would best be represented by what is loose order in Warrior. I spent hours and
hours on that issue. In the end, it was not justified. I am sorry you don't
like that.

<< I can assure
you of frustration among at least one geographic faction of your customers as to
how you manage this process.>>

Yes, we are well aware of the discontent in SW Texas. As in the Army I spent
90% of my time on 10% of my soldiers, we spend a ridiculous amount of effort
trying to placate and keep a small vocal minority in a specific geographic
region, that try as we might, continues to poke us in the eye.
Maybe another game system would suit your needs? Maybe you should look into
getting together and designing your own? With all that deep historical
knowledge, I am sure you could come up with something that satisfies your view
of ancient and medieval history and you wouldn't have to worry about all the
mistakes you think we are making.

J


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

1E by 6E is only 6E. It is an 8E unit. Try again.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:20:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees



No Jon,
A body that is 8 across by 4 deep is 2 elements by 4 and a 90 degree turn will
create a 1 element across by 6 deep formation. See 6.121 and your illustration
on page 34 of the Warrior rules.
Chris
>
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 07:53:03 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]